Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 59338; Published
Judges Maher, Bronson, and Cynar; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 125 Mich App 514; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
Important Body Function Element of Serious Impairment (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function As A Matter Of Law (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
Determining Permanent Serious Disfigurement as a Matter of Law [§3135(1)(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
This unanimous per curiam Opinion is significant because it is the first appellate court opinion interpreting the threshold phrase "serious impairment of body function" since the Supreme Court rendered its opinion in the case of Cassidy v McGovern (item number 608).
The plaintiff in this case was struck by an automobile as she was crossing the street She suffered a broken clavicle and a fractured left leg. Her leg injury required surgery to insert a steel rod in her thigh. In addition, her leg and buttocks were marred by scars. She was hospitalized for five days with her leg in traction and for three months afterwards required the use of crutches, a walker, or a wheelchair.
At trial, the court permitted the jury to consider both the claims of plaintiff that she had sustained a serious impairment of body function as well as permanent serious impairment of disfigurement. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in the amount of $30,000 but there was no indication as to what threshold injury was being compensated. The plaintiff claimed that it was error for the court to permit the jury to consider the question of "serious impairment of body function" and should have directed a verdict in plaintiff’s favor on this aspect of the threshold.
In dealing with the threshold issue, the Court of Appeals characterized the Cassidy holding in a very interesting way The Court stated:
"Thus, a plaintiff can recover in tort only if her injury meets the statute's 'threshold' requirement, i.e., only if she has suffered 'death, serious impairment of body function, or permanent serious disfigurement'
"The Supreme Court has ruled recently that, under certain circumstances, whether a plaintiff has suffered a serious impairment of body Junction is a question of law for the court to decide: [citing Cassidy v McGovern], Because no factual dispute existed as to the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries, whether those injuries constitute a "serious impairment of body function' is a question of law."
In ruling that the plaintiff’s injury did indeed amount to a serious impairment of body function as a matter of law, the Court stated:
"An impairment of body function' is an impairment of an important body function. Plaintiff suffered an injury to her left leg interfering with her ability to walk. As the Court said in Cassidy, supra, 'walking is an important body function. Moreover, we find that as a matter of law, plaintiff suffered a serious impairment of her ability to walk. She was hospitalized for five days with her left leg in traction. For three months afterwards, she was unable to move herself about without the aid of a wheelchair, a walker, or crutches. The trial court erred, therefore, by submitting the 'serious impairment' question to the jury."
The Court then went on to hold that the error deprived plaintiff of a fair trial because it was not clear whether or not the jury found against plaintiff on the serious impairment question. Therefore, the case was remanded for a retrial.
Judge Cynar dissented only as to the conclusion that the error on the serious impairment issue denied plaintiff a fair trial. Judge Cynar argued that the jury had been properly instructed on the overall question of damages and thus, once they found that plaintiff had sustained any threshold injury, was given the proper instruction as to what elements of damage they should consider.
